Non-Natives: Why Can't They Be President?

[Anti-Apocryphal]

This has never made sense to me- why can't non-natives be president (U.S.)? It's not like they're going to try to make the country communist or fascist and what-not. They are more than likely democratic or republican, and support ideas just as a regular democrat or republican would. I wanted to debate this simply because I don't think this is a fair law- and it should be taken down.

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

[quote name='Future Paradise' timestamp='1303171465' post='5150014']
This has never made sense to me- why can't non-natives be president (U.S.)? It's not like they're going to try to make the country communist or fascist and what-not. They are more than likely democratic or republican, and support ideas just as a regular democrat or republican would. I wanted to debate this simply because I don't think this is a fair law- and it should be taken down.
[/quote]
I agree fully but will it be takin down? No... The entire country is full of patriotic idiots who always want the same old politician...
1. Christian
2. White *Although Barack won but Truthfully I was routing for McCain*
3. Old as F*ck
4. Has to be a poltician *I want a business man for Pres plz*
5. Lives in America...

[Icy]

I believe it is. If you're not from here, why run this place? Unless you were raised here from a young age... Makes sense to me. And no, this isn't a debate, nor is it an argument. Its a random thought.

[Lonk]

Because you need to be a citizen (which is one of the requirements of becoming a president by our country)? Like Icy said, it makes no sense that a guy from somewhere like Britain becomes president of the United States, because that would just make no sense.

[CrabHelmet]

ITT: If you moved to America at age three and applied for citizenship as soon as possible, you have no business in this country, and you having any power would be silly. I mean, you're allowed to have absolutely any power other than President, but for some reason you being President is like making America a colony of Britain again.

[quote name='ZeroChill' timestamp='1303240714' post='5152063']
Because you need to be a citizen (which is one of the requirements of becoming a president by our country)?
[/quote]
Natural-born citizen is a much more strict requirement than citizen.

[Anti-Apocryphal]

I understand if you don't know anything, but wouldn't it make sense if they moved here at something like 10, learned about the political system, got a degree in politics, and became one of the best politicians to exist?


@Identity Unknown- Barack only won because he was going to be the first black president. (Not to be racist.) McCain should had won.

[CrabHelmet]

[quote name='Future Paradise' timestamp='1303257262' post='5152732']
@Identity Unknown- Barack only won because he was going to be the first black president. (Not to be racist.) McCain should had won.
[/quote]
[s]You cannot possibly be this stupid. Wait, I seem to remember reviewing one of your fanfics recently. Never mind, you actually are this stupid.[/s]

But hey, this is the Debates section, so let's do this debate properly instead of just doing a simple ad hominem. Now, you are making an assertion: the only reason Barack Obama won was that he was black. Now, since we're doing a proper debate here, you are now going to have to support this assertion with facts and logical arguments. Please do so. Otherwise, your claim is a lie and you know it to be a lie, and this is not actually a proper debate, and I am free to call you a moron.

So, what's your response? Do you have some rationale to back up why the Democratic candidate for the Presidency would have lost (despite the last Republican president being grossly unpopular, the Republican VP candidate being incredibly extreme and polarizing, and the entire rest of the Democratic party scoring major victories without racial advantages) were it not for the color of his skin? Or are you just an idiot who makes patently false and questionably racist excuses for his preferred candidate losing?

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

[quote name='Future Paradise' timestamp='1303257262' post='5152732']
@Identity Unknown- Barack only won because he was going to be the first black president. (Not to be racist.) McCain should had won.
[/quote]
No offense but that is slightly incorrect... Barack made a lot of promises that the public felt qualified him to be president... Plus his backround many considered to be perfect... I do believe McCain should have won but I do not believe that Barack was only elected because of his race...

[Anti-Apocryphal]

But let's get off that seeing as that's not the debate here, and if somebody wants to, can create another thread for that sole purpose. Any responses to:


[quote]
I understand if you don't know anything, but wouldn't it make sense if they moved here at something like 10, learned about the political system, got a degree in politics, and became one of the best politicians to exist?[/quote]

[AsianGuy1137]

Bored so I'm going to play the devil's advocate.

What exactly distinguishes a non-native and an actual native from being qualified for running for the presidency? Let me refer you to a similar argument concerning whether or not the current legal drinking age is fair and should be inclusive for everyone.

Daniel is a hard-working, 4.0 GPA, out-going, and popular guy who's involved in various extracurricular activities. He's decided that he'll join the army to dedicate and potentially relinquish his life in service of the army for what he considers to be for the greater good. Everyone that knows him considers him the most mature person they know. His parents who are both respectable and contributing members of society wouldn't mind if he drank some light alcohol here and there because they deem him responsible enough to handle it.

Sherry, on the other hand, is a slacker who likes to hang out with bad influences and party all the time. She doesn't ever get scolded for being irresponsible and everyone just lets her do what she wants. One day, after consuming enough alcohol to be considered legally drunk in public, she drives her car and accidentally hits an old lady crossing the road even though the streetlights were red.

Although Daniel might be an exceptional case that might seem to warrant special privileges, it would be unfair to many others. In addition, just because he might have the character to be left at his own discretion, he is not representative of the millions of potential abusers who might and most likely will abuse a system based on personal character. Aside from this, it's hard to create a fair criteria of what constitutes exceptional character because I believe that such systems can easily be subjugated by personal biases as well as a subjective and personal consideration of what can be considered exceptional enough as to warrant special privileges. As such, as to preserve the integrity of the system to be representative of the majority, the minority is neglected for the benefit of the whole. Now this might not seem fair exactly, but it works out better in the long run. In fact, this is the kind of reasoning that's incorporated into all major branches of mathematics and the sciences as the model that best fits all trumps the model that might explain a few distinct phenomena.

Feel free to start the personal attacks whenever.

[Grunt Issun]

[quote name='AsianGuy1137' timestamp='1305163494' post='5204029']
Bored so I'm going to play the devil's advocate.

What exactly distinguishes a non-native and an actual native from being qualified for running for the presidency? Let me refer you to a similar argument concerning whether or not the current legal drinking age is fair and should be inclusive for everyone.

Daniel is a hard-working, 4.0 GPA, out-going, and popular guy who's involved in various extracurricular activities. He's decided that he'll join the army to dedicate and potentially relinquish his life in service of the army for what he considers to be for the greater good. Everyone that knows him considers him the most mature person they know. His parents who are both respectable and contributing members of society wouldn't mind if he drank some light alcohol here and there because they deem him responsible enough to handle it.

Sherry, on the other hand, is a slacker who likes to hang out with bad influences and party all the time. She doesn't ever get scolded for being irresponsible and everyone just lets her do what she wants. One day, after consuming enough alcohol to be considered legally drunk in public, she drives her car and accidentally hits an old lady crossing the road even though the streetlights were red.

Although Daniel might be an exceptional case that might seem to warrant special privileges, it would be unfair to many others. In addition, just because he might have the character to be left at his own discretion, he is not representative of the millions of potential abusers who might and most likely will abuse a system based on personal character. Aside from this, it's hard to create a fair criteria of what constitutes exceptional character because I believe that such systems can easily be subjugated by personal biases as well as a subjective and personal consideration of what can be considered exceptional enough as to warrant special privileges. As such, as to preserve the integrity of the system to be representative of the majority, the minority is neglected for the benefit of the whole. Now this might not seem fair exactly, but it works out better in the long run. In fact, this is the kind of reasoning that's incorporated into all major branches of mathematics and the sciences as the model that best fits all trumps the model that might explain a few distinct phenomena.

Feel free to start the personal attacks whenever.
[/quote]

...I'll be honest, I only understood a little of that, from what I can understand, in a Tl;dr sense you're saying: "Even if one would be have the abilities to deserve exceptions, its much easier, and a better system to just eliminate these things as a whole for a certain group." Which would make much sense... is that accurate?

[AsianGuy1137]

Kind of. I'm saying that just because one person might be qualified, you shouldn't abandon the system at his expense because so many more people that aren't qualified might abuse it.

[Masochistic Joker]

Barrack won because of mainly college voters. However looking at the non-citizen topic. Most foreigners that have high political rankings in the US did start from somewhere like most non-Americans like myself. The "non-citizens" worked to achieve the trust in the people that voted for them so they ought to be trusted in a political view. However in a psychological way, most politicians are the same nowadays so what makes them different exactly? They still lie, cheat on their wives, have double standards(Sarah Palin with abstinence and her own daughter), become the puppet of large companies like Monsantos, piss off a foreign leader out of paranoia and put us all into debt with no support(Herbert Hoover/Roosevelt) Myself being a native of Romania and my fiance a native of Italy both have lived in the US since we were toddlers. We weren't that different from most of you. Not that we should have the right but patriotic radicals like Larry King actually need to learn that not ALL of us are communist, fascist, nazis, KKKs(US born i know), Socialist, Anarchist, Kiraist(actually started), Tolitarianist, Al Quaeda, and Taliban bombers. Sure some countries are split on the opinion of the US but our ability to run should at least be considered. At least add a rule that follows the old man tradition. "Having lived in the country as a Citizen for 40 years"

[The Dark One]

[quote name='AsianGuy1137' timestamp='1305163494' post='5204029']
Bored so I'm going to play the devil's advocate.

What exactly distinguishes a non-native and an actual native from being qualified for running for the presidency? Let me refer you to a similar argument concerning whether or not the current legal drinking age is fair and should be inclusive for everyone.

Daniel is a hard-working, 4.0 GPA, out-going, and popular guy who's involved in various extracurricular activities. He's decided that he'll join the army to dedicate and potentially relinquish his life in service of the army for what he considers to be for the greater good. Everyone that knows him considers him the most mature person they know. His parents who are both respectable and contributing members of society wouldn't mind if he drank some light alcohol here and there because they deem him responsible enough to handle it.

Sherry, on the other hand, is a slacker who likes to hang out with bad influences and party all the time. She doesn't ever get scolded for being irresponsible and everyone just lets her do what she wants. One day, after consuming enough alcohol to be considered legally drunk in public, she drives her car and accidentally hits an old lady crossing the road even though the streetlights were red.

Although Daniel might be an exceptional case that might seem to warrant special privileges, it would be unfair to many others. In addition, just because he might have the character to be left at his own discretion, he is not representative of the millions of potential abusers who might and most likely will abuse a system based on personal character. Aside from this, it's hard to create a fair criteria of what constitutes exceptional character because I believe that such systems can easily be subjugated by personal biases as well as a subjective and personal consideration of what can be considered exceptional enough as to warrant special privileges. As such, as to preserve the integrity of the system to be representative of the majority, the minority is neglected for the benefit of the whole. Now this might not seem fair exactly, but it works out better in the long run. In fact, this is the kind of reasoning that's incorporated into all major branches of mathematics and the sciences as the model that best fits all trumps the model that might explain a few distinct phenomena.

Feel free to start the personal attacks whenever.
[/quote]
The argument regarding drinking age actually has absolutely nothing to do with this topic at all. It's not a similar argument.

Here's the obvious difference, the president is elected. That pretty much means that no restrictions are necessary. Questions of loyalty, understanding, competency, etc. can be considered by the public during the elective process. If a candidate is considered unfit for the role, the candidate won't win. Period.

Now obviously it makes sense to have a citizenship requirement, because that prevents America from electing a random foreign leader in a short-termed frenzy of popularity that might die down quickly. But natural birth is a silly concept, and an unnecessary one.

That being said, please don't ever consider electing Arnie as president. He's an idiot.

[Luna Lovegood]

[quote name='The Dark One' timestamp='1305993761' post='5222895']
The argument regarding drinking age actually has absolutely nothing to do with this topic at all. It's not a similar argument.

Here's the obvious difference, the president is elected. That pretty much means that no restrictions are necessary. Questions of loyalty, understanding, competency, etc. can be considered by the public during the elective process. If a candidate is considered unfit for the role, the candidate won't win. Period.

Now obviously it makes sense to have a citizenship requirement, because that prevents America from electing a random foreign leader in a short-termed frenzy of popularity that might die down quickly. But natural birth is a silly concept, and an unnecessary one.

That being said, please don't ever consider electing Arnie as president. He's an idiot.
[/quote]

I think this point has been demonstrated recently with Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. It is clear that neither of them are qualified for the job, and this is reflected in the statistics. Sixty percent of [u][b][i]Republicans[/i][/b][/u] wouldn't even vote for them. America is smart enough to elect those who deserve the job.

Now were I to start arguing against myself, I'd mention Hitler. But I won't.

[AsianGuy1137]

[quote]The argument regarding drinking age actually has absolutely nothing to do with this topic at all. It's not a similar argument.

Here's the obvious difference, the president is elected. That pretty much means that no restrictions are necessary. Questions of loyalty, understanding, competency, etc. can be considered by the public during the elective process. If a candidate is considered unfit for the role, the candidate won't win. Period.

Now obviously it makes sense to have a citizenship requirement, because that prevents America from electing a random foreign leader in a short-termed frenzy of popularity that might die down quickly. But natural birth is a silly concept, and an unnecessary one.

That being said, please don't ever consider electing Arnie as president. He's an idiot. [/quote]

To say that it's a completely irrelevant argument is missing the point. I was demonstrating how there are certain set standards because they both apply to what the government considers proper restrictions to enforce upon certain aspects of society because the government deems them necessary. Why would drinking laws not be relevant then? Citizens can serve in the military and potentially die for their country before they have the right to drink; doesn't it seem somewhat unfair to deny them that opportunity? Regardless, they are enforced because the government deems that people cannot be responsible enough to handle alcohol until they're 21 despite whatever personal qualifications the person might have. The same concept applies to this debate in the sense that the government doesn't consider anyone who wasn't born in the country to be truly qualified regardless of whether the reason itself is valid or not. I personally don't agree with this clause, but it's the law. Although you might want to argue that the will of the people should overrule this law, this nation was founded on the idea that the government is ultimately the will of the people represented by its most capable members; therefore, the fact that the law hasn't been changed should validate the idea that people don't consider anyone to be a non-native citizen qualified.

[The Borg]

I feel the framers put that in to insure complete loyalty. If you were born and lived in a country and emigrate here eventually, then become a citizen, you might not always put America first. Say a person that emigrated here and became president had an earthquake happen in their country, they might put that country ahead of the best interests of America and put the country in debt to help it out far too much. Not to mention they would try to help that country out more, and get more trade deals there. Just my four sentences I guess.

EDIT:
The more I think about it, the more I am for it.
The president may even need to be it to serve as a symbol in times of crisis, and what's a better symbol of America than an American born president?